Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mrs Kendall search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 1462
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Objection to BA1:
- commuting will increase pressure on the roads and railway
- Baldock railway would need to be extended - Govia intend to cut fast trains other than at peak times
- train overcrowding
- Plan not consistent with national policy as it doesn't properly assess transport improvements needed to ensure safe access to the station.
- additional railway parking needed
The reasonable expectation is that most residents in BA1 will commute to work outside Baldock, increasing the pressure on the roads and railway. Baldock railway station would need to be extended. Govia intend to cut 'fast' trains stopping at Baldock other than at peak times, which will be massively problematic for commuters. Adding a further 2800 homes will only exacerbate the problem of overcrowding on the trains, particularly at peak times. Plan not consistent with national policy as it doesn't properly assess transport improvements needed to ensure safe access to the station.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP6: Sustainable Transport
Representation ID: 1700
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Objection to SP6 (comments relating to BA1):
- already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction
- sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed i.e. link road and additional bridge over railway
- Transport Assessment does not consider North of Baldock, only Baldock with Letchworth
There are already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction and if BA1 contains 2800 more households, the traffic flow through this junction will increase significantly. The plan mentions that BA1 site is big enough to support a new link road, including an additional bridge over the railway, but the sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed. The Transport Assessment does not consider N of Baldock, only Baldock WITH Letchworth in traffic modelling. Local Plan Model Testing 60271338 says in para 2 Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 1739
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
An infrastructure development plan is included in the evidence base but it gives insufficient detail on how the infrastructure will be developed and who will meet the costs (the developers may not). This is not consistent with national policy: NPPF paragraph 177 states that "It is . . . important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion . . . and . . . that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up".
An infrastructure development plan is included in the evidence base but it gives insufficient detail on how the infrastructure will be developed and who will meet the costs (the developers may not). This is not consistent with national policy: NPPF paragraph 177 states that "It is . . . important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion . . . and . . . that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up".
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP7: Infrastructure Requirements and Developer Contributions
Representation ID: 2001
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Insufficient detail in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan on how infrastructure will be developed and who will meet the costs.
An infrastructure development plan is included in the evidence base but it gives insufficient detail on how the infrastructure will be developed and who will meet the costs (the developers may not). This is not consistent with national policy: NPPF paragraph 177 states that "It is . . . important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion . . . and . . . that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up".
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 5647
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Objection to BA1 (transport) :
- already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction
- sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed i.e. link road and additional bridge over railway
- Transport Assessment does not consider North of Baldock, only Baldock with Letchworth
There are already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction and if BA1 contains 2800 more households, the traffic flow through this junction will increase significantly. The plan mentions that BA1 site is big enough to support a new link road, including an additional bridge over the railway, but the sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed. The Transport Assessment does not consider N of Baldock, only Baldock WITH Letchworth in traffic modelling. Local Plan Model Testing 60271338 says in para 2 Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Section One - Introduction and Context
Representation ID: 5648
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Kendall
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to Sustainability Appraisal in relation to BA1:
- sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed i.e. link road and additional bridge over railway
There are already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction and if BA1 contains 2800 more households, the traffic flow through this junction will increase significantly. The plan mentions that BA1 site is big enough to support a new link road, including an additional bridge over the railway, but the sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed. The Transport Assessment does not consider N of Baldock, only Baldock WITH Letchworth in traffic modelling. Local Plan Model Testing 60271338 says in para 2 Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date.